-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you had to buy RAM, SSDs, or a new PC since the prices skyrocketed?
Open source ‘helps you and helps SA’
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
Crash
Senior Member
What the biggest load of guff I've ever heard.
Will it start world peace next?
Will it start world peace next?
redarrow
Expert Member
Yea I second that questionic said:
IMHO he has some good points.. you don't need to be a genuis to figure out that OSS is way better for end users...
EDIR: Btw Crash, no it won't start world peace, but I'm betting it'll help a lot more than propriety software
Last edited:
People please - Only microsoft can truly save the world.
Personally I'm all for open-source. The less money thats spent on buggy M$ software the more can be spent where its needed - schools, hospitals, roads, etc (not equipping politicians with new merc's though).
Personally I'm all for open-source. The less money thats spent on buggy M$ software the more can be spent where its needed - schools, hospitals, roads, etc (not equipping politicians with new merc's though).
onlyme
Senior Member
Open Source Not Free
I use a lot of open source software for myself, both Windows, & Linux based, but I'm a developer, so it works out well for me, What people tend to forget is that Open source is not free, yes you can get the software for free, but if you need support most Open Source Companies (including those selling Linux) will charge you an arm and a leg for the support subscriptions which work out almost as much as a MS package would have cost to begin with.
as for Companies switching to Open Source, the benefits simply do not outweigh the costs and the risks, MS Administrators are a dime a dozen, literally, Linux Admins are scarce, and if your company is lucky enough to get one of the good ones it will cost you, as much as R400, 000 – R500, 000 per year, compare that to a Average MS Admin (You don’t need good MS admins like you need good Linux admins windows is a little more forgiving than Linux) you are looking at R 100, 000 – R 150, 000 per year.
Do the maths and you will soon find out you probably need more linux admins per user than you need windows admins per user, so the cost very quickly outweighs any benefits you may have seen.
This is just one example, but the truth remains if you are planning on going opens source you have to either be an IT company to whom it’s an investment or a philanthropist, for most corporates it simply makes no sense.
I use a lot of open source software for myself, both Windows, & Linux based, but I'm a developer, so it works out well for me, What people tend to forget is that Open source is not free, yes you can get the software for free, but if you need support most Open Source Companies (including those selling Linux) will charge you an arm and a leg for the support subscriptions which work out almost as much as a MS package would have cost to begin with.
as for Companies switching to Open Source, the benefits simply do not outweigh the costs and the risks, MS Administrators are a dime a dozen, literally, Linux Admins are scarce, and if your company is lucky enough to get one of the good ones it will cost you, as much as R400, 000 – R500, 000 per year, compare that to a Average MS Admin (You don’t need good MS admins like you need good Linux admins windows is a little more forgiving than Linux) you are looking at R 100, 000 – R 150, 000 per year.
Do the maths and you will soon find out you probably need more linux admins per user than you need windows admins per user, so the cost very quickly outweighs any benefits you may have seen.
This is just one example, but the truth remains if you are planning on going opens source you have to either be an IT company to whom it’s an investment or a philanthropist, for most corporates it simply makes no sense.
redarrow
Expert Member
onlyme: It makes perfect sense to use Linux, the number of problems you might have is a fraction of what you'll get with Windows thus the amount of "support" you'll need is much less too...
Your dialog sounds to me very like Microsofts "Get the facts" campaign
I mean even FNB uses Linux
Linux is not the ugly beast people like to make it out, it's just different to Windows.
My sister even uses it..
Your dialog sounds to me very like Microsofts "Get the facts" campaign
I mean even FNB uses Linux
Linux is not the ugly beast people like to make it out, it's just different to Windows.
My sister even uses it..
onlyme
Senior Member
redarrow said:onlyme: It makes perfect sense to use Linux, the number of problems you might have is a fraction of what you'll get with Windows thus the amount of "support" you'll need is much less too...
Your dialog sounds to me very like Microsofts "Get the facts" campaign
I mean even FNB uses Linux
Linux is not the ugly beast people like to make it out, it's just different to Windows.
My sister even uses it..
My sons machine (he's six) runs linspire, My Daughter prefers Windows but has no problem on my Linux box nor my sons Linspire machine, my wife runs XP since she needs it for some of her systems, my windows 2003 server hosts my .NET sites whilst my redhat box is much better at serving my few php sites on apache than IIS is.
I work with this stuff every day, day in and day out at the office and at home, so my dialog is based on experience and not some warped view i got from a forum or advertising.
When Open Source systems such as Linux are used in a corporate settings, it has at least as many issues to sort out on a day to day basis than for example windows, yes there are fewer Virii but most well managed networks, Windows Or Linux are well protected.
DigitalSoldier
Honorary Master
whats the point of linux for a home user if you cant use it to play games without having trouble trying to get an emulator to work
onlyme
Senior Member
ic said:
Thanks IC,
you are of course correct, my pet gripe is people trying to sell OSS as a cure all when it is not, if people stop trying to sell Linux as if it was snake oil and started targeting environments where it will give real tangible benefits, it will be better adopted, which will lead to it gaining a meaningfull market share and not the cult following it has at the moment.
onlyme
Senior Member
DigitalSoldier said:
which is exactly why all my machines dual boot into XP, my kids spend a huge amount of time on the disney, cartoon network etc sites all of whom have a huge amount of flash games that run perfectly on linspire and firefox, but when they want to play LOTR etc, they boot to windows.
DigitalSoldier
Honorary Master
onlyme I used to use linux just for the fun of learning something new but isnt it easier to just install firefox on xp and then no need to reboot computer after a game to browse on the web
redarrow
Expert Member
Well that just proves my point about Linux not being an ugly beast!onlyme said:
No offence intendedonlyme said:
nor was I implying where you got your facts from.. I was just noting the similarity in focusing on the need for expensive admins...As mentioned in the article one the very important things about OSS is the freedom (freedom as in "free speech" not "free beer" as they say on fsf.org
) i.e company's can modify software to their own needs - something that propriety software will never give you.That said, sorry if I came off "cocky" , I tend to get rather "heated" about OSS
DragonLogos
Expert Member
My view is firstly that people should use Open Office rather than a Jolly Roger MS Office, and the same goes for other proggies
And yes there is a lot of scope for people to write / adapt (or die) packages, for people - I had a request like this the other day were typists needed a word processor to be adapted to the way they work. I told them, that it could be done and instead of them shelling out a few hundred each for something that will not do what they want, for a bit less they could have Open Office adapted to what they need - and that means that I would get a bit of extra income, and there would be less money going out of the country
Another nice thing about OSS is that yes it is hard to learn and find out how to change things, but that stops people (users and operators) from fiddling and messing things up
And yes there is a lot of scope for people to write / adapt (or die) packages, for people - I had a request like this the other day were typists needed a word processor to be adapted to the way they work. I told them, that it could be done and instead of them shelling out a few hundred each for something that will not do what they want, for a bit less they could have Open Office adapted to what they need - and that means that I would get a bit of extra income, and there would be less money going out of the country
Another nice thing about OSS is that yes it is hard to learn and find out how to change things, but that stops people (users and operators) from fiddling and messing things up
Last edited:
Linux not all it's cracked up to be
Linux is deffinately far more expenisve than Microsoft. Maybe not in a home environment, but in most businesses.
Yes you don't have to pay for all of the software (although you do for some), but Linux developers are soooo expensive. They usually charge around 3x as much as Microsoft developers and with Windows, you can usually find the exact package you need. Do a little check on the difference in price between proprietary and developed software.
Many years ago, I also believed in the dream of opensource. I have now realised what a nightmare it really is. There are very few businesses that would actually save money from open source.
Benefits of proprietary Software Over Opensource
* In Most cases, vendors are obliged to fix bugs for free --> under opensource you either have to find a bug fix done by someone else (that may break something else) or you have to pay someone at extreme rates.
* Proprietary software is usually better tested and has better help --> Most Opensource developers don't want to bother with these menial tasks. In any case, they have given you the source so you can fix it (the standard opensource assumption that everyone is capable of programming) or you can pay them more money to fix it.
* Open Source software very rarely comes with decent help files that the average user can follow. Linux based software has a different flow to it than Microsoft based software and many users have difficulty adapting. Combine those together and you have a training nightmare and a lot of user resistance.
I have seen 2 companies make an attempt to move to open source, 1 small and 1 medium. Both projects eventually failed and they both returned to using proprietary software after substantial costs.
Linux is deffinately far more expenisve than Microsoft. Maybe not in a home environment, but in most businesses.
Yes you don't have to pay for all of the software (although you do for some), but Linux developers are soooo expensive. They usually charge around 3x as much as Microsoft developers and with Windows, you can usually find the exact package you need. Do a little check on the difference in price between proprietary and developed software.
Many years ago, I also believed in the dream of opensource. I have now realised what a nightmare it really is. There are very few businesses that would actually save money from open source.
Benefits of proprietary Software Over Opensource
* In Most cases, vendors are obliged to fix bugs for free --> under opensource you either have to find a bug fix done by someone else (that may break something else) or you have to pay someone at extreme rates.
* Proprietary software is usually better tested and has better help --> Most Opensource developers don't want to bother with these menial tasks. In any case, they have given you the source so you can fix it (the standard opensource assumption that everyone is capable of programming) or you can pay them more money to fix it.
* Open Source software very rarely comes with decent help files that the average user can follow. Linux based software has a different flow to it than Microsoft based software and many users have difficulty adapting. Combine those together and you have a training nightmare and a lot of user resistance.
I have seen 2 companies make an attempt to move to open source, 1 small and 1 medium. Both projects eventually failed and they both returned to using proprietary software after substantial costs.
Have to agree with you there Dave17295. From my experience not only are you faced with the developer/aminastrator fees, there is also a very real and huge problem with user resistance. It is hard enough to find people who actually KNOW how to use current off the shelf software (MS orientated), not even to mention to now try and teach them a different OS and associated software.
Maybe with the next generation at the steering end of business it might be easier as kids today are far more IT literate than the current "working generation". More youngsters are being exposed to the various flavours of Linux and OSS as a whole, which will lead to easier adoption of it, and maintanance of OSS environments. For now I think that South Africa is not quite ready or able to adobt and implement OSS across the board in most companies.
Maybe with the next generation at the steering end of business it might be easier as kids today are far more IT literate than the current "working generation". More youngsters are being exposed to the various flavours of Linux and OSS as a whole, which will lead to easier adoption of it, and maintanance of OSS environments. For now I think that South Africa is not quite ready or able to adobt and implement OSS across the board in most companies.
The same old flame war
If a Linux admin earns R500k, where can I sign up?
Please supply details on those failed open source projects.
The pro-proprietary folk seem to be rehashing "Get the facts" and showing how little they know about FOSS.
If a Linux admin earns R500k, where can I sign up?
Please supply details on those failed open source projects.
The pro-proprietary folk seem to be rehashing "Get the facts" and showing how little they know about FOSS.
Last edited: